By ANDY GARDNER

CANTON -- Despite a judge’s ruling that District Attorney Mary Rain will not be replaced by a special prosecutor in all of attorney Ed Narrow’s cases, he will push to have her replaced on a case-by-case basis.

Narrow had filed a motion in court to have the embattled DA recuse herself from trying his cases. He wanted the special prosecutor because he believes Rain has a vendetta against him. One of the things he cited as a reason were 2016 grand jury proceedings Rain initiated against Narrow, which resulted in the indictment being dismissed.

On Monday, Judge Derek Champagne ruled Rain would be replaced for one of 96 defendants. The judge ruled following a hearing last month which was held after Rain objected to the motion.

“We are grateful that Judge Champagne has ordered a special prosecutor on a case where the defendant is facing life in prison if he is convicted,” Narrow read from a prepared statement during a phone interview. Narrow says he will now seek to have Rain recuse herself as individual cases go before the judge.

“Will it result in individualized applications going to the judge? Absolutely,” Narrow said on the phone on Tuesday. “He’s indicated he would like special prosecutor applications in a different format and we will comply with that request.”

“Realistically what we’re looking for, for all our clients, is the same opportunity for justice everyone has in St. Lawrence County and we don’t think with the district attorney in place now our clients are getting that.”

The judge decided to replace Rain with a special prosecutor in the case of Keith Sharlow. In his decision, Champagne cites an ex parte conversation about the defendant between the DA and former Fowler Town Justice Paul Lamson, which is prohibited.

“The former judge testified that the District Attorney told him ‘I needed to rule in her favor, or some words to that effect, to keep the son of a bitch in jail,’” Champagne wrote in his decision. “The Court credits this testimony, and the willingness of the District Attorney to make such an ex parte statement demonstrates a desire to undermine the Criminal Justice system, ultimately discouraging the confidence of the general public in our government and the system of law that serves it.”

Rain did not immediately return a request for comment.

The ruling says special prosecutors must be determined on a case-by-case basis, not in a blanket ruling.

“Petitions for a special prosecutor must be on a case-by-case basis and must demonstrate a need for disqualification on a particular case,” Champagne’s decision says. “This court has grave reservations in removing a District Attorney from any case, let alone fifty-five (55) that are currently pending prosecution, as well as, a number of anticipated future prosecutions.”

The ruling says Narrow conceded on the record that special prosecutor applications should be filed individually and that he is not aware of any clients unfairly targeted by the county’s top prosecutor.

“The Court asked Attorney Narrow during oral argument if there are any captioned cases that he believes his clients were unfairly targeted by the District Attorney’s Office. Attorney Narrow answered, ‘None that I’m aware, Your Honor,’” the ruling reads.

The ruling also chastises Narrow’s paperwork, saying the way he wrote out the cases from which he was seeking Rain to recuse herself was confusing.